If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

Tonight I spent over an hour in the Kernersville Wal-Mart shopping while OC'ing without incident. I carry a Kimber Crimson Carry 3" .45 (1911), tonight I had it in my IWB, nice and discrete. I went across the street to Harris Teeter and was in the store no more than 20 mins, when I noticed a store employee walking directly toward me from behind. I turned to face him and he says "I have to ask you to take your gun and lock it up in your car". I ask "Why, do you folks have a store policy prohibiting firearms in your store?" He replies, "No, but several customers have said that you are making them nervous." "By doing what, shopping?", I asked."No, its your gun", the asst. manager states annoyingly. "Well, what's problem. I am in full compliance with North Carolin law. Open Cary of a fire arm is protected under the NC and US constitutions" I say. Now he gets really mad..."Look, I am not going to debate gun laws with you. I know my rights as a store owner. If I ask you to put it in your car, you have to comply". "Oh really, since when do you have the right to disarm a citizen"." Tell you what, I spend over $600 a month here, take my half-full cart and stick it. You'll never see me back in this store again." And I start to walk off. Then he says "Hey..Wait a minute. I have a concealed carry permit myself. I think everybody should carry a gun, but I have got deal with these customers, man. I 'm in a bad spot, you know". I say, "That's cool, but just ask me to cover my weapon. I would be glad to untuck my shirt and cover it. But don't ask me to disarm myself because some anti-gun nut get nervous."

After that exchange, he took me in to the back of the store and wanted to see my Kimber and talk guns for 45 mins. Turned out to be a nice guy, but lacking in the guts dept when it comes to informing customers about NC gun laws. He did ask me to carry concealed next time I visited Harris Teeter in K-ville.

imported post

imported post

Thanks for the replys, folks. i just did find the Triad OC Calender. I will make it point to be there next meet.

Maybe one of you can help me...I have pouring over the NC laws and can not find anything that gives a store or business owner the right to ask a person to leave their establishment, (if they are comittingno crime) just because other custmers are getting nervous over a legally carried firearm. What if I had refussed to leave or cover my weapon? He would have called KPD. Then what? I would be charged with disorderly conduct? What about the "other" customers who started the problem? I think you guys are right, K-vile HT needs an OC BLITZ of about a half dozen armed citizens.

imported post

Most likely, the police would respond, and have the manager tell you in front of them that you were no longer allowed to come on the property, and that if you did, you would be charged with trespass. A store owner or property owner can have anyone removed from their property for any reason they want.

imported post

As Jag said, if asked to leave and you refuse you will be trespassing and most certainly will be charged with such if police are involved. If a manager asks you to leave a store, do not argue and leave immediately (I definitely like how you pointed out a dollar cost in the loss of your patronage). However, make sure it is a manger that asks (not just an employee) and be sure to get his or her name. Then as soon as you can, file a polite and professional complaint with the corporate office (this is why you need to be sure to get his or her name). If it is a standard big box like Wal-Mart or Lowe's that "follow state laws", they will take care of educating the manager and you will be clear to OC there next time. However, never forget that even though the manager may be going against his company's policy, they can still legally ask you to leave for any reason and you must do so immediately.

Also, my personal opinion is that a police offer has no right to ask me to leave or cover up. If I had a policeman ask me to leave, cover up or put my gun in my car I would ask him or her to involve the manager and see if that is the manager's wish first. But, that is just my .02.

Thought I should edit text to include citation:

§ 14‑159.13. Second degree trespass. (a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another: (1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or (2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises. (b) Classification. – Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

imported post

The store manager had a bad experience with OC also. There's no point in arguing, if a store owner or manager asks you to leave then you should comply. If it's an employee, ask to speak with a manager. Sorry to say this, but you were in the wrong.

imported post

This is one reason I OC. We as gun owners have been demonized by the left and as well as the firearm itself. By OC, we can educate the bed wetters and start taking this "evil" myth out of the equasion. I will NOT give up my rights just to make someone FEEL more at ease. The Gov. scares me more than anyone.

imported post

Ok guys I know you may not want to push this but a business has no right to ask you to leave or refuse you entry based on your exercise or lawful carry of a firearm. I had a thread going that was called Plain old discrimination where we were discussing this and I thought I was wrong with my view of it but here is a video that states what I believe to be true about the exercising of the 2nd in a private business . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP1Wg...eature=related

imported post

If a property owner or their agent asks you to leave you can be charged with trespassing for not complying. Additionally, you are just creating a poor image of OC.

I know there's one judge who thinks it's a rights violation, but you can almost always find one judge who agrees with you. Doesn't make it legitimate. There are a whole lot of laws on the books that remain so far unchallenged that are affected by what this guy is saying.

I have the same level of respect for business owners as I do private property owners, if they don't want me to conduct activity on their property then I won't do it and I will take my business elsewhere.

imported post

blindhog wrote:

Ok guys I know you may not want to push this but a business has no right to ask you to leave or refuse you entry based on your exercise or lawful carry of a firearm. I had a thread going that was called Plain old discrimination where we were discussing this and I thought I was wrong with my view of it but here is a video that states what I believe to be true about the exercising of the 2nd in a private business .

This is the discrimination argument. Should establishments be able to discrimination based on a personal choice? So they could say no gays or no religious people? If I had the time/money I would love to blow this up in some corporate/government faces.

imported post

The way I see it. If the store guy had any Ba%$#, he would have told the persons complaining that they have the right to leave. Also I dont believe there was more than one person complaining from personal experience.

imported post

Lawmaker wrote:

blindhog wrote:

Ok guys I know you may not want to push this but a business has no right to ask you to leave or refuse you entry based on your exercise or lawful carry of a firearm. I had a thread going that was called Plain old discrimination where we were discussing this and I thought I was wrong with my view of it but here is a video that states what I believe to be true about the exercising of the 2nd in a private business .

This is the discrimination argument. Should establishments be able to discrimination based on a personal choice? So they could say no gays or no religious people? If I had the time/money I would love to blow this up in some corporate/government faces.

I still see the distinction being the overt practice. Should I have to let you "practice religion" in my store? Should I have to let you practice your sexual preference there? I don't think so. If I feel that it is interrupting my business, then the argument is bolstered. I'm not denying you the right to keep and bear arms, I'm simply saying don't bear them on my property.

I get the argument the judge is making, but I do not believe that it was the intent of the founders to force government restrictions on businesses. It's a slippery slope, you can't just tell people "It's OK to want to make a living, but first you have to give up all rights as a property owner".

imported post

I am in agreement with Carry Open on the Private property is my castle deal. However we are holding a double standards to the rights/discrimination.

I really would not call it practicing my right by just carrying a firearm like you used in your examples. Maybe shooting my gun in the store would be equal to your examples. I think of it more like Gun owner=Christian=Gay person. If we as a government are going to force private property owners to accept people into their establishments based on race and religion why not being a gun owner.

imported post

Lawmaker wrote:

I am in agreement with Carry Open on the Private property is my castle deal. However we are holding a double standards to the rights/discrimination.

I really would not call it practicing my right by just carrying a firearm like you used in your examples. Maybe shooting my gun in the store would be equal to your examples. I think of it more like Gun owner=Christian=Gay person. If we as a government are going to force private property owners to accept people into their establishments based on race and religion why not being a gun owner.

What I'm saying though is that you aren't being discriminated against as a class (gun owner, christian, gay). You are being asked that you not practice the act (bearing arms) on said property. While I completely understand how great it would be for me if this were considered discrimination (if I ever were a store owner I wouldn't have anti policies), I also hold property owner's rights in very high regard and would hate to force my beliefs and practices on them. If I went to a restaurant that said "No White Men" then I would probably be offended, but I also wouldn't want to give them any of my money.

imported post

You have a right to keep and bear arms, I understand. You are also performing an action, you don't have to bear arms in a Starbucks, you have to be your race in a starbucks, you have to be a gunowner in a Starbucks if you are a gunowner anywhere. None of this means that you are forced to carry them, nor does it mean that you are forced to shop there.

It is not a natural right to impose yourself on another person's property. What happened to common courtesy? Can I no longer ask you to leave my home after I have invited you there? Oh, it's only different if I want your money, but that can't be it either, you see, because if I ask you to leave then I don't want your money. Just because it's a business that caters to the public doesn't mean they have to forgoe their property rights, that is total bs.

imported post

You're definitely right. I still feel that it would be wrong for me to leverage the system to force my position on individuals. I'm all for leveraging the system when you're just forcing the gov to recognize your rights and beliefs, but forcing your beliefs on a business to the point of disruption I can't stand by.

We have grey areas everywhere - you can practice free speach, but can you be asked to leave Chucky Cheese if you have a shirt on with "offensive" language? You're exercising your right the same way that you are exercising your right when you carry a gun. If the answer is no, you can't be asked to leave, then when did your right to wear that shirt become more important than those folks being able to take their children out for a clean, fun evening? And when did it become more important than a business owner's ability to retain customers? Just because it's on a piece of paper and a judge said so?

All gun owners are not gun carriers and all gun carriers are not gun owners. You are not being discriminated against because you are in the "gun owner" class. You are not being discriminated against because you keep and bear arms. You are being told that you cannot practice the act in a particular, private place. If there were a sign that said "no gun owners" or "no gun carriers" then it would be discriminating based on a class, giving someone the option to put their weapon in the car or leave the store infers that they are not discriminating against the class, but the action.

Having met and talked with me, I think Lawmaker has some idea that I'm not a total jerk, even if I'm opinionated on this subject. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I just don't see how it makes any of us look good if we are trying to force our opinions on business owners or individuals and I don't see how we can even begin to think that legislation will make it the "right" thing to do.

imported post

Ok I'll post this and leave this alone but I continue to believe that my rights as spelled out in the constitution do not get left at the door step of a business.

"Over the years the distinction between public and private spaces has become obscured. This is why Starbucks is finding it so difficult to insist that customers do not carry weapons while in their establishment.

It is because over the last several decades a doctrine of public accommodation has developed in the law such that when some area is adjacent to a public sphere — a street or road or park — it no longer enjoys private property rights, the authority to determine what happens there.

It all came about because of the impatience with racially discriminatory merchants and costumers. If they were understood as having firm private property rights, they would have to have their racist practices protected by law, which the courts were unwilling to sanction (unlike the protection of porn!). In particular, in a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, handed down invalidating a law enacted by referendum in California pertaining to the right of people to sell their property to whomever they choose, Justice Byron White explained that the California law (Art. I, Sec. 26) enacted via Proposition 14 (in 1964) "authorized private discrimination," even though, he added dubiously, only "encouraging, rather than commanding" it. (Actually it only tolerated it!) He added:

The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the state’s basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government.

And for him, a loyal modern liberal justice, that was unacceptable! Yet that is exactly what is entailed in the notion of a right — its exercise, wisely or unwisely, is shielded from others’ interference. Justice White himself made this evident, albeit disapprovingly, when he observed: “Those practicing racial discrimination need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official source." And what’s wrong with that? It’s the same with everything else objectionable the constitution protects, such as flag burning.

Notice that by prohibiting racial discrimination as a matter of legal mandate, the court removed the issue from the realm of morality or ethics. How could one freely make a personal choice to discriminate (or not) if government has the legitimate power to stop one from discriminating not as a government official but as a private citizen, within one’s private domain? If I want to restrict the potential buyers of my home to only Mormons or White Protestants or Hungarian refugees, that ought to be my business, no one else’s. But no, the Supreme Court of the supposedly freest country of the world chose to prohibit bad choices by its citizens. That is exactly like censorship by the government, plain and simple. And recall how so many American commentators were appalled at how Muslims reacted to the Danish cartoons that made fun of Islam! For Muslims what the cartoonists and the papers that published them did was every bit as awful as racial discrimination was to Justice White and his colleagues on the Supreme Court.

Now back to Starbucks and gun rights. Turns out that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual Americans who want to own and carry firearms, this now means Starbucks isn’t free to decide about whether its costumers may do so in its coffee shops. Why? Because these shops are "affected with the public interest," because they are located on streets which are public spheres and because government regulates them. Here are proprietors who want to apply their own, possibly sound standards of safety within the establishment they own and aren’t permitted to do so because, well, the property is no longer deemed to be really theirs at all but part of the public sphere (square)"

imported post

We'll just have to agree to having a fundamental ideological difference. You aren't checking your rights at the door. If someone gives you a choice, they are not depriving you of anything. You can't compare classism to restricting action. Regardless of how you feel about discrimination, if you believe that forcing the acceptance of personal viewpoints through legislation is the "right" way to do things, then we can never agree. At the same time, if you believe that the legislature has a legitimate power to take away your rights as a property owner just because you have a business, we can never agree.

Every step you take in that direction is a step closer to being legislated in your home. Sometimes we have to take a stand against government interference even if it benefits a class of individuals that we belong to because it is to the detriment of another.